Browsing named entities in George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 6, 10th edition.. You can also browse the collection for Chatham Corr or search for Chatham Corr in all documents.

Your search returned 34 results in 10 document sections:

and friendship grow from every act of our lives. Townshend to Grafton, 25 July, 1766, in Grafton's Autobiography; and C. Townshend to Pitt, 26 July, 1766. Chatham Corr. II. 464, 465. Thus he professed himself a devotee to Pitt and Grafton, being sure to do his utmost to thwart the one, and to supersede the other. The lead his health. My friend, said Frederic of Prussia on hearing of it, has harmed himself by accepting a Peerage. Andrew Mitchell to Chatham, 17 Sept. 1766; Chat. Corr. III. 70. It argues, said the King of Poland, a senselessness to glory to forfeit the name of Pitt for any title. Charles Lee to King of Poland, 1 Dec. 1766; Lesultation on European alliances. Grafton's Autobiography. The next day Chatham, with the cheerful consent of the King, King to Chatham, 25 Sept. 1766; Chat. Corr. III. 75. retreated to Bath; but its springs had no healing for him. He desired to control France by a northern union; and stood before Europe without one power as
moval of Lord Edgecombe from an unimportant post. Charles Townshend to Grafton, 2 Nov. 1766, in Grafton's Autobiography; Conway to Chatham, 22 Nov. 1766, Chat. Corr. III. 126. Saunders and Keppel left the Admiralty, and Keppel's place fell to Jenkinson. The Bedford party knew the weakness of the English Ximenes, and scorned tdebt, seventy millions of which thou hast employed in rearing a pedestal for thy own statue. Sir Matthew Fetherstonehaugh to Lord Olive, 30 Dec. 1766, in Chat. Corr. III. 145, 146, Note. And the very next day, in the House of Lords, Chatham marked his contempt of the bitter mockery of Rockingham's partisans by saying to the Dud, a firm advocate for the Stamp Act, Charlemont to Flood, 29 Jan. 1767. for its principle and for the duty itself, Shelburne to Chatham, 1 Feb. 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 184, 185. only the heats which prevailed made it an improper time to press it. I laugh at the absurd distinction between internal and external taxes. I know
hatham to Shelburne, Bath, Feb. 3, 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 188; Chatham to Shelburne, Bath, Feb. 7, 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 193; Shelburne to Chatham, Feb. in Chat. Corr. III. 186. and between his opCorr. III. 186. and between his opinions as a statesman and his obligations as Minister, he knew not what to propose. H. Hammersley Shelburne to Chatham, 16 Feb. 1767; in Chat. Corr. III. 209. would no longer defer breaking the pica; Bristol to Chatham, 9 Feb. 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 199. and he told Shelburne plainly that te; Shelburne to Chatham, 6 Feb. 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 207, 209. and New-York underwent the impuion. Shelburne to Chatham, Feb. 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 187. The difficulties that beset Sheled Shelburne to Chatham, 6 Feb. 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 191; S. Sayre to J. Reed, 3 Sept. 1766. wan. 1767. This letter is printed in the Chat. Corr. III. 200, with the erroneous date of Feb. 9. mpare Grafton to Chatham, 13 March 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 233. None heeded the milder counsels of C[1 more...]
against my opinion. Shelburne to Chatham, 13 March, 1767; Chat. Corr. III. 233. A letter from Shelburne explained to Chatham the neceorgan, in Lansdowne House Mss.; Compare Shelburne to Chatham, Chat. Corr. III. 192, and for the opinion of Grenville, Chat. Corr. III. 208. Corr. III. 208. Besides: no Province had absolutely refused to comply with the spirit of the Act. A slight modification, leaving some option to Chap. XXIX.}se by Chap. XXIX.} 1767. May. doing nothing. Beckford in Chat. Corr. III. 251. Others thought there should be an amendment to the Biracy in England. For the one he needed to dismiss Shelburne; Chatham Corr. III. 254. for the other, to employ the name of Chatham. Grafham; but Chatham refused to see him, pleading his disability. Chatham Corr. III. 255-260. The King himself intervened by a letter, framed o Chatham, 30 May, 1767, 34 m. past 2, and 35 m. past 8 p. m. Chat. Corr. III. 260-264. Chatham yielded to such persuasion; though suffer
s, it had made a grant of money Moore to Shelburne, 18 June, 1767. for the use of the Chap. XXX.} 1767. July. army, without specifications. This, by the advice of the Attorney General and Solicitor General, Shelburne to Chatham, in Chat. Corr. IV. 325. Shelburne received as a sufficient compliance, Shelburne to Moore, 18 July, 1767. Compare Vote of New-York Assembly of 6 June, 1767. Message of Moore of 18 Nov. 1767. Board of Trade to the King, 7 May, 1768. and the Assembly went on during his long career; and the two parties met once more at his house. But the difficulty about America could not be got over. Rockingham again avowed his distrust of Grenville Compare Lyttelton to Temple, Nov. 1767, in Lyttelton's Life and Corr. II. 740. and Temple, and insisted on Conway's taking the lead in the House of Commons. This left no possibility of agreement; and we broke up, says Bedford, with our all declaring ourselves free from all engagements to one another, and to be as
all united in denouncing vengeance, as they expressed it, against that insolent Chap. XXXV.} 1768. July. town of Boston. W. S. Johnson's P. S. to Letter of 23 July, 1768, to W. Pitkin. The thought of gaining quiet by repealing or modifying the act, was utterly discountenanced. If the Government, said they, now gives way as it did about the Stamp Act, it will be all over with its authority in America. As Grafton had escaped to the country, Hamilton to Calcraft, 24 July, 1768. Chat. Corr. III. 385. Frances to Choiseul, 29 July, 1768. Hallowell was examined at the Treasury Chambers before Lord North and Jenkinson. Treasury Chamber, 21 July, 1768. Present, Lord North, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Jenkinson. He represented that the determination to break the revenue laws was not universal; that the revenue officers who remained there were not insulted; that the spirit displayed in Boston, did not extend beyond its limits; that Salem and Marblehead made no opposition to the payment
ve his consent. The King awaited anxiously the result of the interview; Lady Chatham's Memorandum of a conversation with the Duke of Grafton, 9 Oct. 1768. Chatham Corr. III. 337. and notwithstanding the warning, Shelburne was removed. To Camden's surprise, Camden to the Duke of Grafton, 14 Oct. 1768. Though I was apprehect this sudden resignation. the resignation of Chatham instantly followed. Grafton and the King interposed with solicitations; King to Chatham, 4 Oct. 1768 Chatham Corr. III. 343. but even the hope of triumphing over the aristocracy had lost its seductive power; and the Earl remained inflexible. Camden knew that he ought to have retired also; Camden to Chatham, 20 March, 1768. Indeed, my dear Lord, our seals ought to go together, &c. Chat. Corr. III. 325. he hushed his scruples by the thought that his illustrious friend had not asked him to do it; Chap. XXXVII.} 1768. Oct. and continued saying He shall still be my pole star, Camden to the Co
s plainly factious; and the resolutions which only censured the past were defeated by a vote of more than two to one. Chatham would not attend the debate, when they were brought forward in the House of Lords; but spurning the lukewarm temper of the Rockingham Whigs, he placed himself before the nation as the guide of the future, zealous for introducing a more full and equal representation. Vote of the Common Council of London, 14 May, 1770. Motion of Lord Chatham, 14 May, 1770; in Chat. Corr. III. 457. Chatham to the London Deputation, 1 June, 1770. His patriotism was fruitless for that generation; light on representative reform was not to break on England from the House of Lords. But America was an essential part of the English world. To New England the men of the days preceding the ill-starred Commonwealth had borne their ideas of government, and there the system of an adequate, uncorrupt and equal representation existed in undimmed lustre. There the people annually came to
tion. Letter to MacDougall and Sears, 6 Dec. 1773. As for Boston itself, the twenty days are fast running out; the consignees conspire with the Revenue officers to throw on the owner and master of the Dartmouth the whole burden of landing the tea, and will neither agree to receive it, nor give up their bill of lading, nor pay the freight. Questions proposed by Captain Hall and his owner, and Answers given by the tea consignees. Every movement was duly reported, Journal of the Com. of Corr. for 7 Dec. VI. 461. and the town became as furious as in the time of the Stamp Act. Hutchinson to Mauduit, 7 Dec. 1773. On the ninth, there was a vast gathering at Newburyport, of the inhabitants of that and the neighboring towns, and none dissenting, they agreed to assist Boston, even at the hazard of their lives. This is not a piece of parade; they say, but if an occasion should offer, a goodly number from among us will hasten to join you. Original Papers, 670. On Saturday
of the Counsel of the Province, in a letter from Edmund Burke, the Agent of the Colony of New-York to the Committee of Correspondence of the New-York Assembly. He spoke well, and was seconded by Lee. Burke to Rockingham, 1 or 2 of Feb. 1774; in Corr. i. 453. The question as presented by Dunning, was already decided in favor of the Petitioners; it was the universal opinion that Hutchinson ought to be superseded. Wedderburn changed the issue, as if Franklin were on trial; and in a speech sachusetts, and for prosecuting individuals. The opinion in town was very general, that America would submit; that Government was taken by surprise when they repealed the Stamp Act, and that all might be recovered. Shelburne to Chatham, Chat. Corr. IV. 324. The King was obstinate, had no one near him to explain the true state of things in America, and admitted no misgivings except for not having sooner enforced the claims of authority. On the fourth day of February, he consulted the Am